who shares Corbyn's belief that Labour lost the last election because they were Tory lite? (i do)

Labour lost the election because they didn't get enough votes. Any further analysis than that will depend on your own beliefs and prejudices.

The great majority of English voters who voted Labour in 2010 but didn't in 2015 voted Tory instead, so for them at least, the problem clearly wasn't that Miliband and his shadow cabinet weren't sufficiently left-wing. Of course, even this large bloc of voters is outnumbered many times over by those who didn't vote and have never voted, so rather than trying to win back fair-weather ex-Labour voters who switched to the Tories, it would be better for a Corbyn-led Labour party to try and woo these vote-virgins, who tend to be young and are often economically marginalized and, if they can be persuaded to engage in politics at all, are more likely to vote for a party that represents their own interests.

At least, that's the theory. Thing is, there's so much anti-immigration/anti-Europe rhetoric around these days, from all the major parties as well as most of the press, that a lot of these non-voters might be more inclined to vote UKIP than Labour.

Labour lost the election because they didn't get enough votes. Any further analysis than that will depend on your own beliefs and prejudices.

I did say belief... but you could do further analysis with some sort of research or evidence ofc. altho i spose those kinda polls aren't being done and would be incredibly hard to interpret.

putting forward some ideas

The great majority of English voters who voted Labour in 2010 but didn't in 2015 voted Tory instead, so for them at least, the problem clearly wasn't that Miliband and his shadow cabinet weren't sufficiently left-wing.

maybe i shoulda been clearer in that corbyn's position on labour's loss isn't that ed miliband and the sc were defeated because they weren't left enough, it was because they just didn't offer anything different to the tories, in terms of voice and narrative.

i reckon in these neoliberal centreground times the typical notions of left and right didn't mean that much to voters in the last couple elections. maybe this is patronising of me but i think a lot of people don't know what left and right really means now. neoliberal and rightwing ideology set the terms of the debate during the election. the story of the deficit as the cause of the financial crisis and the return to the thatcherite analogy of a national economy to the finances of a household was so powerful and labour did so little to challenge it they walked into it.

it would be better for a Corbyn-led Labour party to try and woo these vote-virgins, who tend to be young and are often economically marginalized

from what he's saying about young people in interviews i think this might be the strategy.

maybe i shoulda been clearer in that corbyn's position on labour's loss isn't that ed miliband and the sc were defeated because they weren't left enough, it was because they just didn't offer anything different to the tories, in terms of voice and narrative.

Yes, I would agree with this. Left-wing people don't want "Tory Lite", they want a proper Labour party, and right-wing people - for the most part - don't want it either, because they're happy voting for the original, full-sugar, caffeinated Tory party.

I think the blunt terms "left" and "right" are nearing the end of their useful life, if they haven't already outstayed their usefulness by several decades. For one thing, most people who think of themselves as left-wing support the free movement of people, not least because the Right is almost uniformly anti-immigration. And yet the free movement of people - which means the free movement of labour - is about as neoliberal a principle as you can get. The interaction of economics with culture and belief is complex, too - religious voters are often said, on the whole, to be economically progressive but socially conservative - so are they "left-wing" or "right-wing"?

I guess the argument is that the Tories and the right-wing press have been selling the idea that "austerity" is synonymous with "economic responsibility" and hence that any deviation from their austerity programme constitutes irresponsibly profligate overspending that will destroy the economy.

The right-wing Labour approach has been to respond to this by trying to be almost as pro-austerity as the Tories in the hopes of being seen as being almost as economically responsible. The Corbynite position is that this loses the left wing voters by being too Tory and doesn't actually succeed with right-wing voters either because "only slightly more likely to balls up the economy than the Tories" still isn't a particularly strong offer, and maybe it'd be more useful to actually try to attack the basic premise that equates "austerity" with "responsibility" and "social democracy" with "destroying the economy".

If Labour offer Tory Lite, they'll get in in 2025 at best, by the law of people-getting-bored-with-the-same-party-after-a-while. Given that they've lost Scotland for the foreseeable future (for ever?), even that might be optimistic.

The interaction of economics with culture and belief is complex, too - religious voters are often said, on the whole, to be economically progressive but socially conservative - so are they "left-wing" or "right-wing"?

in this case i think there's a bit of a false separation of social life and economic life. for me these people are basically stuck in a contradiction. give charitably to try to alleviate some social problems on a case by case basis without fundamentally challenging the economic conditions that usually cause them.

i can really see the press and establishment trying to bring Corbyn down when he becomes party leader. the shit is going to hit the fan

in this case i think there's a bit of a false separation of social life and economic life. for me these people are basically stuck in a contradiction. give charitably to try to alleviate some social problems on a case by case basis without fundamentally challenging the economic conditions that usually cause them. To the extent that they might vote for a Labour party led by an avowedly anti-austerity politician, perhaps.

Oh I dunno, I think quite a lot of church-going people (don't know about other religions but there's no reason to assume they're not similar in this regard) are broadly anti-austerity, in favour of proper taxation for corporations and rich individuals, and so on.

Certainly, church leaders have been pretty harsh critics of austerity, much to the government's embarrassment and in contradiction of the old cliché about the C of E being "the Tory party at prayer".

Certainly, church leaders have been pretty harsh critics of austerity, much to the government's embarrassment and in contradiction of the old cliché about the C of E being "the Tory party at prayer".

true yeh. i sorta had catholics more in mind when i was writing that reply because i have had more experience of catholicism and it seems to be very socially conservative and contradictory. i know there is a tendency for catholics to vote on the left, but i find this at odds with their views on sexual desire and emphasis on children as the responsibility of parents>church and not the state. i was maybe extrapolating unfairly onto all christians.